“A summons is not a warrant”: Ukraine’s Ombudsman says military recruitment offices systematically break into homes — and waits for the Commander-in-Chief’s reply

Imagine you are at home, evening, door locked. You hear loud knocking — and then someone in uniform climbs through your window. Sounds like a horror movie? For residents of Khmelnytskyi region, this became reality in early October. For tens of thousands of other Ukrainians, it is a plausible scenario.

On October 7, Ombudsman Dmytro Lubinets made a statement that was anything but diplomatic. “A summons is not permission to enter someone’s home,” he said. He added that even the presence of a police officer does not grant an automatic right to enter a dwelling. This is not just rhetoric — it is a reminder of Article 30 of the Constitution, which guarantees the inviolability of the home. No mobilization law has ever overridden the Constitution.

The numbers Lubinets cited are striking. In 2026, his office has received over 5,800 complaints about the actions of TCCs and support units. For comparison, the total for the whole of 2025 was just over 6,000. So the pace is not slowing down. In September 2026 alone, 20 criminal proceedings were opened based on materials provided by the Ombudsman. There is even a first conviction: in Odesa, a TCC employee was sentenced to actual imprisonment. Details are scarce, but the precedent exists.

The incident in Khmelnytskyi region that triggered the latest statement is particularly vivid. A group of people in military and civilian clothing climbed through a window into a private house. Lubinets immediately contacted the Prosecutor General’s Office. A criminal case was opened under Article 162 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine — illegal entry into a home. But has it been confirmed that the intruders were actually TCC employees? The investigation is ongoing.

Another case worth recalling happened in Lviv at the end of August, when a TCC representative drew a service weapon during a confrontation with civilians. The State Bureau of Investigation opened a case. These are only the incidents that made it into the public domain. How many similar cases go unnoticed is anyone’s guess.

On October 5, Lubinets had already published five categorical prohibitions for TCCs: no use of force, no illegal detention, no forced dragging into vehicles, no seizure of phones or documents, and no ignoring health conditions or legal grounds for deferment. These are basic legal rules. The very fact that the Ombudsman has to spell them out shows how deep the problem runs.

Now the key point: Lubinets has formally appealed to Commander-in-Chief Mykhailo Drapatyi to stop the practice of entering private premises without legal grounds. As of October 8, there has been no public response from Drapatyi. Silence.

Does this mean the military command does not consider the problem serious? Or has it given behind-the-scenes instructions? Or perhaps it simply does not know how to respond, because admitting systemic violations means admitting that the mobilization machine is malfunctioning at the ground level.

For an ordinary Ukrainian, the situation is alarming. On the one hand, the state demands compliance with military duty. On the other hand, those who are supposed to enforce that duty are breaking the law themselves. And the Ombudsman, who should be the guarantor of rights, is effectively acknowledging that control mechanisms are not working — otherwise he would not have to publicly beg the Commander-in-Chief to intervene.

What can you do if someone tries to enter your home without permission? First, do not open the door unless they have a court order. Second, record everything on video, call the police (though police sometimes accompany TCCs). Third, file a complaint with the Ombudsman and go to court. Fourth, demand the presence of a lawyer. It sounds like a survival guide under martial law — but this seems to be the new reality.

The big question remains unanswered: will Drapatyi respond? And if he does, will there be real consequences for the offenders, or just another round of “preventive talks”? For now, the answer is silence. And in such matters, silence is tacit permission to continue.